[Cyber-Dave]

Cool! Glad you were able to make a decision. Keep an eye on the clarifications thread; I've posted a question somewhat to the effect of the Unaware question. Feel free to elaborate on the question if I didn't convey your concern clearly.

Will do. And thanks again!

[lafayette]

FWIW, reading this thread has prompted me to write up a clarification for how I'm going to be handling the question in my campaign. It may or may not be helpful to you, but it does have illustrative pictures!

[Reaver]

I dunno, I can see both sides of what you guys are say, and I can see what the writers are saying...

When dealing with with firearms and the defense (dodging) test, you are not responding to the bullet, but to where the barrel is pointed at (bullets travel FAST, as in the hundreds to thousands of feet per second!)
It's not a case of "oh look! a bullet is coming at me, better side step!" but more of a case of "Crap, he's pointing a gun at me! move out of the way!!"

SO, a defender behind total cover is 100% protected... but he also can not see where that gun is pointed. (but the attacker as no idea where the defender is too!)

SO now we look at what is actually happening by rules. The attacker is -6 for blind fire, the defender is +4 defense, but unaware of the attack.

by Mechanics of SR, it would look like this: Attacker's gun pool: <Attribute>+<Skill>, +/- modifiers.
                                                            Defender's defense pool: <attribute>+<attribute>, +/- modifiers.
                                                                                                     (or Full defense for <Attribute>+<attribute>+<attribute> +/- modifiers)

So Mechanically, when the defender runs into a room, and around the corner, breaking LOS, and the attacker choice to continue to attack it would look like this:

Attacker: rolls : <Attribute>+<attribute> -6 blind fire, +/- anything else.(range, smartlink, scope/site, environmental)
While the defender rolls <attribute>+Attribute> + <unaware> +4 full cover +/- anything else

So the attackers pool is at least -6 if not more.
while the defender is reduced to a pool of +4 (full cover) [the unaware removes the normal defense pool of the defender, leaving only the situational bonus]

All said, that means that the defender has a total defense of 10. (the -6 for the attacker, the +4 for total cover)

If attacker wins, follow the rules for shooting through a barrier to find the damage that must be resisted.. (if any)
if the defender wins. Stop. (but feel free the add a little colorful description as to hearing/seeing the rounds rip through the wall, or splatt against it... as appropriate)

[deek]

So, do most people assume the +4 Good Cover bonus is rolled even if you don't get a defense test due to being unaware of the attack? The way I had been playing, the +4 was ignored because the defender didn't get a test at all.

I'm just curious to how people are interpreting that, as I'm still not sure I would give someone 4 dice to a test they are not supposed to be rolling...

[martinchaen]

deek I don't see it that way, for sure.

The way I read it, if you hide behind 100% cover, the attacker takes a negative modifier (-6), and the defender is considered unaware. The fact that he has cover is calculated into the "shooting through barriers" rule for this purpose, as I see it.

That's just my view though, and hopefully we'll get more information in the rules clarification thread as I've asked this question there.

[Reaver]

So, do most people assume the +4 Good Cover bonus is rolled even if you don't get a defense test due to being unaware of the attack? The way I had been playing, the +4 was ignored because the defender didn't get a test at all.

I'm just curious to how people are interpreting that, as I'm still not sure I would give someone 4 dice to a test they are not supposed to be rolling...

Dunno, how other read it, but that is the way I do...

Modifiers can take a dice pool to zero... meaning that you have NO chance to do what you want to do. (throw a knife, 300 meters, in the middle of hurricane while doing a one armed handstand...)

they can also ALLOW you to do the impossible in the other direction as well.....  (a kill shot with a pistol, even thought you have no firearms skill and agility of 1..... just press the barrel to forehead and pull the trigger!) [Target unable to move, point blank, laser sight, targeted shot]

[martinchaen]

*snickers*
A laser sight with the barrel pressed up against the temple of the guy isn't going to help much

I know, I know, I'm just teasing. Even by SR rules, that would hardly be a combat action though. If the GM made me roll for that kind of gangland style assasination, I'd smack him with the rulebook.

[Reaver]

*snickers*
A laser sight with the barrel pressed up against the temple of the guy isn't going to help much

I know, I know, I'm just teasing. Even by SR rules, that would hardly be a combat action though. If the GM made me roll for that kind of gangland style assasination, I'd smack him with the rulebook.

I have seen worse at some tables.


And it COULD be a combat situation... Maybe the guy got KO'd by a combat spell, and dropped the gun when he hit the floor.... and little Psycho Suzie (the incompetent decker, with a murder fetish) decides it would be fun to off the guard with his own gun??? (never trust those deckers! No telling when they will go from "innocent schoolgirl", to raving psychotic crazy woman...... they'll tell you it's the matrix viri...I think it's cause they are anti-social)

ok... I could be stretching



But the way modifiers work still holds true.... the fact that it tell you that you are "unaware" (thus no defense pool) THEN tells you get a +4 defense modifier, means it has to work that way for the sentence to make sense. and it is also how it is described in the section on pools and tests.

[Cyber-Dave]

So, do most people assume the +4 Good Cover bonus is rolled even if you don't get a defense test due to being unaware of the attack? The way I had been playing, the +4 was ignored because the defender didn't get a test at all.

I'm just curious to how people are interpreting that, as I'm still not sure I would give someone 4 dice to a test they are not supposed to be rolling...

On page 189, under the rules for "defender is unaware of an attack," it states: "If the defender is behind cover, the defense dice pool is determined by the cover, according to the Defense Modifiers table."

So yes, by the rules as written, you get your cover dice bonus as a Defense roll EVEN when you lose the rest of your Defense roll due to being unaware of an attack.

My current understanding of the rules as written is that it works like this: if, outside of combat, a target is unaware of your attack, it gets no defense roll against you. In combat, a target cannot be unaware of an attack, and that particular condition is ignored. In melee, however, you may still get superior position benefits in situations where targets would otherwise be unaware of an attack. One way or the other, even when a target is unaware of an attack, you still get to use any of your bonus dice from cover to make a Defense roll.

[Xenon]

Situation	Ranged	Melee	Defender
Partial cover (25-50%)	0	0	+2 (require take cover action)
Good cover (>50%)	0	0	+4 (require take cover action)
Total darkness	-6	-6	No defense possible

Attacking someone from behind with a melee weapon once combat already started = defender take defense test as normal but attacker get +2 for having superior position.

Attacking someone from behind with a melee weapon before combat started and target is unaware of the attack (failed to hear him sneak up or heard him sneak up but failed the surprise test) = defender is unaware and does not get to take a defense test using his own attributes and skills. His defense pool is determined by the cover (a total dice pool of 2 dice if he got 25-50% cover or a total dice pool of 4 dice if he got >50% cover). If target failed his perception test or choose to not turn around when hearing someone sneaking up on him then attacker get +2 for having superior position.

Attacking someone from behind with a ranged weapon (before or after combat start) = defender is unaware and does not get to take a defense test using his own attributes and skills. His defense pool is determined by the cover (a total dice pool of 2 dice if he got 25-50% cover or a total dice pool of 4 dice if he got >50% cover).

Attacking someone that is aware of you, not surprised and also used a simple action for Take Cover = defender aware of the attack and take his defense test as normal with a +2 for partial or +4 for good cover modifier.

[martinchaen]

Is that a houserule, Xenon? I can't find the Total Darkness rule anywhere; it would seem unfair to discount the other senses (primarily scent and hearing) from being able to alert someone of an impending attack, but that's just me.

[Xenon]

Is that a houserule, Xenon?

Defender Unaware of Attack (SR5 p.189)
If the defender is unaware of an incoming attack (he does not see the attacker...) then no defense is possible...

[martinchaen]

Fair enough. That's a pretty literal interpretation, though, and it would not always include "total darkness". A Troll will never suffer that penalty, for instance. I think the RAW agrees with your argument, but I think RAI is clearly meant to be "he does not perceive the attacker".

It would have been more obvious (heh) if you had just stated "Unaware" like the rules do...

[Xenon]

Blind fire and Total darkness is the same modifier.

Blind Fire (SR5 p.178)
Whether due to darkness or cover, if the shooter doesn’t know where the target is, they apply the Blind Fire modifier. This modifier is the same as the Total Darkness modifier and as such is not cumulative with it...

Trolls have natural thermographic vision. They never suffer Total Darkness or Blind Fire due to darkness. Troll would only suffer blind fire due to target being 100% behind cover. They are also never unaware of an attacker due to darkness alone. They would still be unaware if the shooter is behind them or if they are surprised.

[Cyber-Dave]

I think there are some issues with your interpretation Xenon. Most of it strikes me as accurate, but I take issue with the following articles of interpretation:

Attacking someone from behind with a ranged weapon (before or after combat start) = defender is unaware and does not get to take a defense test using his own attributes and skills. His defense pool is determined by the cover (a total dice pool of 2 dice if he got 25-50% cover or a total dice pool of 4 dice if he got >50% cover).

The rules on page 189 explicitly state, "This does not apply to defenders who are already engaged in combat" (page 189). They do not state, "this does not apply to defenders who are already engaged in melee combat." The following parenthetical modification does not obviate the main clause, nor does it modify it in a manner that makes the main clause untrue in any given situation. Its as if I wrote the following statement: You cannot walk over snow without sinking in (see "effects of snowshoes" for more information"). Yes, the effects of snowshoes parenthetically modify my claim. When wearing snowshoes you can walk over snow at a reduced speed in order to avoid sinking into snow. That does not mean that when you are not wearing snowshoes my main clause stops being true. When attacking from behind with a ranged weapon outside of combat, the same rules apply as those you described above. When attacking from behind with a ranged weapon inside of combat, an opponent cannot be unaware of an attack.

I do not think any foe can ever be unaware of any attack, melee or ranged, inside combat. Melee attacks, in order to make up for their generally lower damage and lack of burst/automatic rates of fire, can benefit from the superior position rules. Outside of combat, a foe can be unaware of an attack, and is if you shoot them through a barrier.

But who knows. I am not infallible. Maybe I am wrong on this. We need developer clarification.